Kieran Healy

Rhetorical Equivalence

Slowly recovering from jetlag here in Canberra, I’ve been catching up with some of the blogchatter about Yellowcake and the infamous sixteen words. I’m struck by a peripheral aspect of the debate. Before the invasion, many anti-war protestors used the slogan “Not In My Name” or something similar. That line was derided by pro-war commentators as epitomising the supposedly self-indulgent or solipsistic attitiude of the anti-war movement. So it’s interesting that, in the wake of the controversy over the State of the Union speech, hawks like Daniel Drezner respond like this:

I understand why Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and others are so exercised about the “sixteen little words” meme. The uranium question—and the blame game that has erupted along with it— manages to undercut two pillars of strength for the Bush team. …

I can’t get exercised about it, however. My reasons for supporting an attack on Iraq had little to do with the WMD issue. The uranium question was part of one rationale among many the administration gave for pushing forward in Iraq. I’m not saying this should be swept under the rug, but the level of righteous indignation that’s building up on the left is reaching blowback proportions.

Dan can be relied on to have made as well-argued and well-supported case for war as possible, but at this point I really don’t care what it was, for the same reasons the hawks had no time for the “Not In My Name” line. The substance of the President’s case for war is what matters, and it had everything to do with “the WMD issue.” If that case was built on a series of lies—immediate threat, 45-minutes to deployment, uranium from Niger and all the rest of it—then that is something to get exercised about.

Precisley right. Any case made after the fact is irrelevant to the one made before the fact. Democratic accountability demands that we weren’t misled before the war, not whether we can find other justifications after it. It’s not about the war; it’s about aribitrary power.

Welcome to Canberra, Kieran. Don’t worry – the weather’s usually a bit nicer here than this. I’ll drop in and say hello next time I’m in the Coombs building.

I supported the invasion based on the imminent threat from space aliens. Leftist whining about WMD lies is entirely irrelevant to my personal rationale.

So, how does doubt about one piece of evidence amount to a case against the rest of it? Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam did not seek these weapons, and wouldn’t use them given the chance? The GOP is pursuing stupid tactics in CYA fashion. So what?

Another thing to think about in this debate on how much do those 16 words really matter is something the Bush administration said about war with Iraq. They have said that the WMDs were not their only reason, simply the one they chose to make the most important. Well, then, the 16 words aren’t the only problem I have with the president, but it’s the one I’m making a big deal about. If the Republicans really want to know my other objections to the current administration, they can ask.

“Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam did not seek these weapons, and wouldn’t use them given the chance?”

Let’s say the answer is is no. Does this mean we have a new foreign policy of going to war with countries who seek weapons of mass destruction, and who are inclined to use them given the chance?

The Smoking Man, Bender, Dale Gribble (aka Deep Throat), and Chris Carter are behind everything…

wouldn’t Machiavelli be proud?

George writes, “Let’s say the answer is is no. Does this mean we have a new foreign policy of going to war with countries who seek weapons of mass destruction, and who are inclined to use them given the chance?”

Not at all, unless they put me in charge. Folks, this stuff is 1950s tech. We don’t have time to wait around. In the hands of the enemies of western civilization, these weapons are truly dangerous to us and our way of life. Anyone who has them, or is seeking them, for the purpose of threatening our civilization, impeding our strategic mobility, or otherwise causing mayhem and murder within our borders, is a legitimate target. There is room for disagreement about who might be seeking them and for what purpose, but if the evidence mounts, we should start dropping bombs.

Wow. That’s some kind of foreign policy: “We don’t have time to wait around … if the evidence mounts, we should start dropping bombs.” Sounds about as nuanced as the Bush administration is likely to get in its understanding of world affairs, I guess.

Isn’t that what this whole debate is about? What kind of evidence has been presented? There were doubts when Bush first presented his, and those doubts now appear to have had merit. But “we don’t have time to wait around.” Nope. People gotta die because we’re impatient.

This may be 1950s tech, but we shouldn’t respond with 1950s us-against-them paranoia.

What evidence is there that Iraq intended to use WMDs against “western civilization”? What does Iraq have against “western civilization”? A hallmark of Saddam’s reign was the secularization of Iraq. This fact proves inconvenient, I guess, for those who want to lump Saddam in with religious fanatics in the Middle East who have declared their antipaty towards the West.